'McLibel' two in human rights court

The "McLibel two" are back in court today in the next stage of their fight to stop multinationals being allowed to sue individuals for libel.

Helen Steel and David Morris were sued by fast food giant McDonald's in what remains the longest running trial of any kind in English legal history.

Now the pair are back in court claiming the case breached human rights laws designed to protect free speech and the right to a fair trial.

The two-hour hearing in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is the latest chapter in an infamous 14-year "David versus Goliath" saga triggered when McDonald's decided to act against a former gardener and a former postman handing out six-page leaflets entitled, "What's Wrong with McDonald's".

The leaflets, containing damaging allegations about the fast-food chain, were compiled by London Greenpeace - no link to the Greenpeace International environmental group.

Neither Ms Steel, 39, nor Mr Morris, 50, had any hand in writing the leaflets, but they were targeted by McDonald's in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended in 1997 after a 314-day trial.

McDonald's awarded damages

High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled that McDonald's had been libelled and awarded the company £60,000 in damages, reduced to £40,000 on appeal.

But he found that the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10 million and was described as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

Human rights breached

Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham, north London, have refused to pay the damages, and have now taken their case to Strasbourg claiming the original proceedings breached their human rights by denying them freedom of speech and right to a fair trial.

Keir Starmer QC, representing Ms Steel and Mr Morris, told human rights judges: "This case is about the rights of two ordinary people without power or wealth to engage in a public campaign on matters of public interest and importance."

Lawyers for the pair are arguing that multinationals should not be allowed to sue for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the environment and must be open to scrutiny and criticism.

They will also call for a defence for those who distribute leaflets containing information they honestly believe to be true.

The fact that legal aid is not available in England for those defending libel actions also breaches the Human Rights Convention, they will say, because of the financial inequality between individuals and wealthy corporations.

'Ordinary people should be able to criticise'

Unemployed Ms Steel said: "Ordinary people should be able to make criticisms that they think are valid about a company without having the fear of being sued for libel.

"It is recognised by the courts here that governmental bodies should not be able to sue for libel because of the chilling effect it has on freedom of speech and we believe the same should apply to multinational companies.

"These companies are just as powerful, if not more powerful, yet they are even less accountable than government bodies."

Ms Steel and Mr Morris claim the refusal to grant them legal aid for the trial contravened article six of the European Convention on Human Rights, denying them proper representation and preventing access to all the evidence they required.

It will also be argued that their freedom of speech under article 10 was breached because they had to prove the absolute truth of every fact in the leaflet even though they were not the authors.

Allegations 'already in public domain'

In addition, they say the allegations were already in the public domain and McDonald's were not required to show they had been left out of pocket.

Lawyer Mark Stephens, who is representing the pair, said: "Libel laws have been developing in this country to preclude people from suing.

"It started with government departments, then took in local councils and former state industries."

He added: "McDonald's were the first libel tourists and came here from the US to sue because they couldn't bring the case in America.

"In the US they would have had to prove the

untruth of the leaflet, unlike here where the information was presumed to be lies until proved otherwise."

After hearing the evidence in Strasbourg, the judges are expected to deliver their verdict later this year or early in 2005.